Okay folks, let's start to review for our first unit exam.
Our objective today is to finish some of the material we missed out on yesterday, and hit some of the most important points.
Question 1: Why was colonial "New York" considered more of a feudal society?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
Well, in case you weren't listening, I will be on this site from 7 to 8 p.m. this evening to discuss your questions for the Unit 1 exam.
By the way, my question about New York is from Ch. 4, the one you skimmed for homework two nights ago.
manor lords+people under him= feudal system
New York was more of a colonial society because when the Duke of York took over the colony he made the people living on the large manors pay taxes to the landlord.
Urk. I don't remember the Kelley very well... my guess, however, would be either that the Dutch gave out proprietary territories (like the English) which pretty much created a feudal society, or...uh...probably that an elite group of landholding merchants emerged that bought large tracts of land and effectively controlled them autocratically. That sounds very 17th-century Dutch.
Like I said, don't remember the Kelley that well.
Tyler and "The Norvis" are closest to the mark here--skim over the second column of Ch. 4. Okay, let's move on--What is the lesson the folks in the colonial South could take away from Bacon's Rebellion?
Bacon's rebellion led other people in the South to rebel against the government?
Colonial New York was a feudal society for several reasons. Basically, it reflected the system of rural england. There were feudal landholders.
that the souths underclass had the power in itself to have an uprise and overthrow the ruling population
Bacon's rebellion truly established that a group of people has power over the government, whatever it is, if they are so dedicated. This may have been a founding influence for the idea of democracy, or at least, a "people's nation."
Bacon's rebellion proved that the government existing in the South was not very powerful, as it could be disposed by a crazy man named Nathaniel (Cheeseburger) Bacon Jr.
It showed them that it was possible to rise up against a ruler but it also showed them that the ruler would take back control.
The southern colonists found the local indians as a scapegoat.
Liz and company are getting closer--Bacon's rebellion proved that tension was brewing amongst the Southern colonial underclass of indentured servants, freed men, and folks of various ethnic/racial backgrounds.
bacons rebellion also proved that England's power over the colonies was limited because of its very delayed reaction to the turmoil caused by Bacons rebellion
Excuse me, I would like to tell you that the folks in the Southern Colonies learned from Bacon's Rebellion. Yes, that's right! They learned that even a group of pretentious and filthy "animal-like" men can kill people and gain power. There you go colonial gentlemen. There's the key! USE IT WISELY!
Go Brett! Great comment!
NEW QUESTION: Hiawatha was a famous Iroquois thinker--how did his thinking influence native customs and government?
he was a peaceful indian leader and didn't want to create war between the colonists and themselves.
he convinced 5 bands of indains who spoke the same language to form the five nations, which can compare to the union of the 50 states
why was it that Hiawatha's civil confederacy did not allow warriors to be representatives to the federal council?
Ahh..Hiawatha. What a name. What a crisp breeze of a name. And what a thinker, eh? He really was. It's true, he influenced Indian customs and government...yes government too folks! He unified the Iriquois! UNIFIED! As in the opposite of the Beatles during the recording of "Let it Be". He preached peace too. There ya' have it!
Hiawatha was a follower of The Great Peacemaker and told the Iroquois about his ideas.
MOOCS+T= indian nations
mohawk
oneida
onandoga
cayuga
seneca
tuscarora
he had six cheifs of the iroquois nation to write in english, the oral history of the League of Five nations, obviously meaning he wanted good relations with the settlers soon to come....found off google, im not smart enough to know that my self
Because the warriors would lean toward more barbaric decisions
because Hiawatha was a peacemaker and did not want the warriors to have a say in the council to stir up trouble
Probably because he figured they would be too eager to fight, Sean. Also, the Iroquois (and most Native Americans) had great respect for the wisdom they believed was inherent in women and the elderly. So, young men...yeah, not so much.
I'll answer my own question-he thought that they(the warriors) might tend to take warlike stands in the council meetings
Great! Now I would like some of you folks to post your own questions that myself and others can comment on. Ready . . .set. . .go!
How were the quakers and puritans similar and different?
To take a leaf out of our book of questions, what Quaker habits DID lead to the expression "one foot in the meeting house and the other in the counting house?" Were they big on taxes, or what?
Who was it that william Penn wrote for and why did he support their cause
the quakers wanted to have the freedom of religion,the puritans didn't really like that.
The Quakers made very good merchants due to their hard working habits so they became very wealthy. So they were both wealthy and still followed their Quaker principles.
When the Barbados slave code was adopted into the North American Colonies in the 1700's, conditions that slaves lived under were greatly decreased. However, later in history the Spanish (Latin American) countries treated their slaves much better than British Colonies. Does this mean that there was a second change in Latin American countries in regards to slave codes (even after De las Casas) that increased living conditions to slaves? And how strongly were either of these enforced? As far as Barbados was concered, it was against the law to put your slaves to death, however slave executions have always been occuring in the US. Was Barbados dramatically changed when the British colonies adopted it, or was it just not enforced.
William Penn wrote for George Fox and did this becuase he like the Quaker's ideas.
derick they both were devout in their quests .however their quests differeed in that the puritans wanted to be "saved" and the quakers sought martyrdom
Quakers and Puritans alike and different...well, both were radical protestant philosophies, both refused to acknowledge any possible truth in other philosophies, and both sought the New World as a place to fulfill their mission. Also, both decided that theirs was a great and mighty group that would be the light of the world.
As to differences, actually I think the biggest one was that the Puritans were significantly more Calvinist (ie predestination). There's probably more than that, but I don't remember it and I'm almost out of time.
Post a Comment